Streaming is the future. We’re focused on it. DVD will do whatever it’s going to do. We’re not — we’re going to try to not hurt it, but we’re not putting a lot of time and energy into doing anything particular around it and then we’re focused on, how do we take advantage of this incredible global streaming opportunity.

Now, with that context in mind, consider this news: Netflix announced last night that customers could sign up directly for a $7.99-a-month DVD-only plan by visiting dvd.netflix.com.

Some of my fellow typers believe that this is a sign that Netflix has re-embraced the DVD business, which has much better margins than the streaming business, but is dropping away, quarter by quarter.

That would be a good narrative, but I don’t think it’s true.

Consider:

• This is the same $7.99 DVD-only plan that Netflix introduced last July.
• It’s the same URL that Netflix introduced last July. Apparently, it must have gone away at some point between then and now, but the fact that no one seems to have noticed its disappearance is telling.
• New customers who head to the Netflix home page will have no way of knowing that Netflix offers a DVD-only plan. If they click around a bit, they’ll find a note telling them they can add DVDs to a streaming-video subscription plan, but no word of the disc-only option.
• It remains nearly impossible to give someone a Netflix gift subscription that includes DVDs.

This doesn’t sound like a newfound appreciation for the DVD business to me. It sounds like Netflix is continuing to “not put a lot of time and energy into doing anything particular around it.”

So why bother with the new/old URL at all? I asked Netflix PR for comment; if they find the time or energy to respond, I’ll update here.

On another level, however, I understand the motivation. When it comes to delivering audio-visual content to a wide audience, the Internet has lowered the barriers to entry so far that anyone with even the dinkiest camera can become a major broadcaster. The television industry may face a crisis of overhead when a large number of scrappy upstarts deliver comparable value with almost no fixed costs. Also, there are some aspects of the television business that the Internet simply does better, specifically when it comes to reaching an audience.

So there is the scent of blood in the water, and out of the resulting frenzy a few lessons have appeared. Here are four of them.

There doesn’t have to be a difference between a “channel” and a “show.”

You probably have a clear understanding about what a television channel is. Comedy Central is a channel. Your local CBS affiliate is a channel. A channel is the thing you tune in to at a specific time to watch a particular show. A channel runs a lot of shows on it. Time Warner Cable offers 900 channels. This seems like too many. Bruce Springsteen wrote “57 channels and nothing on.” That sounds so quaint now.

But if you have a conversation about YouTube channels with this concept of a “channel” in your head you may experience some cognitive dissonance. There are “tens of millions” of channels on YouTube. One company, Machinima, operates 3,380 of them. That’s literally 100 times as many channels as are owned by NBC Universal, and it’s not enough. YouTube just launched 100 more channels with premium content. YouTube must be using the word “channel” differently. Except they’re not.

Both a YouTube channel and a television channel deliver a stream of content from a transmitting device to a receiving one. Viewers tune in to a television channel by selecting its number; they reach a YouTube channel via its URL. The main difference is that the cost of creating a television channel from scratch is incredibly high, while on YouTube it’s pretty close to zero. Unlike television, a YouTube channel can turn a profit with very little programming. The comedian Ray William Johnson, for example, has one of the most lucrative channels on YouTube. It plays one show. That show adds 12 minutes of new programming per week.

If a channel online costs next to nothing, and you can build one around a single show, then why do television shows need television channels at all? Every once in a while there’s a lot of fuss about getting cable channels à la carte. But who cares about that when you can have à la carte programming?

I like to think about this in the context of “The Daily Show.” On cable, you’re limited to 30 minutes of “The Daily Show” per day, and you have to tune in at 11 pm or set your DVR to watch it. There could easily just be a “Daily Show” channel, with all the extra programming that Comedy Central now reserves for the Web site, plus spinoffs for the various “Daily Show” correspondents. More content means more places to sell advertising, which means more profit. One challenge, of course, would be getting the audience to modify its behavior, but new technology seems to be inspiring this already.

Programming can now be delivered to your television set through a remote control.

Let’s define “remote control” as a handheld piece of electronics that tells your television set what to do while you’re sitting on the couch. Smartphones and tablets fit into this category, and before you argue that this definition is too broad, I submit that an iPhone is no less a remote control than it is a camera. It commands your television set far more profoundly than your traditional remote control. At least, if you have an Apple TV. Which you should.

The Apple TV comes with a technology called AirPlay, which allows you to throw videos wirelessly from your phone or tablet to your television set. Got a movie sitting in iTunes on your computer? You can watch it on TV via AirPlay. Find a video you want to watch embedded on a Web site you read? If AirPlay is available, a little button will pop up and you can stream the video to your TV. Need some good recommendations? Try one of the many “discovery” apps out there, like Shelby.tv or ShowYou or VHX. They skim your Twitter and Facebook feeds looking for videos your friends have posted. And you can throw those to your TV.

There are apps for ESPN and Discovery Channel and PBS and other traditional channels that allow you watch their shows, on demand, on your TV, via AirPlay. There are also a growing number of apps for channels that have never been included in a traditional cable provider’s lineup. The Wall Street Journal’s news channel, WSJ Live, is one of them. Time Warner Cable doesn’t carry it, but my iPad does.

I should note that WSJ Live is also available in the main Apple TV library, so you don’t actually need to use AirPlay to watch it. But the fact that you can illustrates my point. The remote control has become a very personal device, one that you carry around with you all day long, one that you use to store and index your favorite media. A viewer is just as likely to watch a channel she’s added to her home screen as anything available in the cable menu. The programming of her choice routes through her remote control.

Marketing and distribution are often the same thing.

Last month, IFC released the entire first episode of the second season of “Portlandia” online a week before its airdate. They used an embeddable video player, so that any online publication could feature the episode on its Web site. Individual sketches from the show were also made available in the same way. IFC didn’t just tease the show or talk it up, they let people actually see it for themselves. The result was an 81 percent increase in viewership among 18-49 year olds when the show returned to the network.

There are few examples of this sort of thing happening before the Internet. A movie poster hanging in a theater where that movie is playing, perhaps, or a DVD insert in a magazine ad. But this is something the Internet does really well. A single sentence can promote a film and deliver it to your computer at the same time. Allow me to demonstrate: “This video is amazing.”

That, of course, is the lifeblood of online publishing. Here’s something that resonated with me, I’m recommending it to you, my audience. They call it “curating” now. Somehow that word got separated from “blogging” recently, and I’m not entirely sure how or why. I think Tumblr and Pinterest had something to do with it. But curating, which is a thing bloggers do, is a distinct talent. It’s highly respected in other manifestations, such as museum curators or fashion buyers or television programmers. It was curators who spread that “Portlandia” preview around. And when you factor in the marketing power they brought to that show, and you consider how much a network pays to advertise a program in general, there’s only one conclusion to draw. Online curators are the most undervalued talent in the television industry.

A few of those new YouTube channels seem to recognize the power of the curatorial voice. Vice, Pitchfork, SB Nation and the Bleacher Report all received funding to create new YouTube programming. Presumably their editors will create shows that they’d want to watch themselves, and with that level of personal investment, they’d vouch for those shows to their readers.

Television is no longer that different from publishing.

Just last week, the Gawker Media site Kotaku announced a programming schedule similar to that of a television network. This strategy was conceived well over a year ago, and is designed to sell audience size to advertisers, the way television does, rather than pageviews, which have been dropping in value for years.

This is only the latest example of conceptual overlap. Video embedding took off after the launch of YouTube, turning online publications into versions of The Daily Prophet, that newspaper from Harry Potter with the magical moving pictures on the front page. Some Internet video hosting and streaming services are built on content management systems designed for online publishing. When you upload a video to Blip, the last thing you click to make it go live is “publish.” Awl Music, the music video channel launched by The Awl in January, is run entirely on Tumblr. You can watch it on a television set connected to Google TV.

Both traditional and online publishers are producing original video series with increasing frequency. Reuters, Slate and The Wall Street Journal all have news and documentary programming on the new YouTube channel lineup. The New York Times and New York Magazine have been doing their own video programming for years. It’s only a matter of time before some of these compete with the cable news channels.

Eric Spiegelman produces the Web series “Old Jews Telling Jokes,” which is about to launch its fifth season. He helped bring the hit Japanese television show “Retro Game Master” to Kotaku.com, and he helped launch AwlMusic.tv in partnership with TheAwl.com.

Yes, this is AllThingsD.

A whole new redesign of AllThingsD, that is.

The new look is the third since we launched the site in April of 2007 and–trust us–we think you’ll like it a lot better.

There are a lot of reasons for a redo of any site.

In this case, there are many–from wanting to keep it fresh to figuring out a better way to feature the incredible journalism of our many new reporters who have come on board in the last six months to trying to give the reader a more visual experience and much improved navigation.

That’s a good thing, since the site has been bursting at the seams for a while now, as we have steadily and dramatically increased the number of stories we post every day.

So naturally, we’re pretty excited to launch a redesign today that enables us to better display the depth and breadth of our coverage and to showcase the talent behind it.

And, after months of kibitzing with our longtime and most excellent designers at Mule Design in San Francisco, we think we have done that and more.

Some major deets:

BOOMTOWN IS DEAD, LONG LIVE ALLTHINGSD:

As you will see, in the new set-up, all blog posts belong to AllThingsD and no longer operate under a variety of column names.

We thought long and hard about this change, which entailed moving all the content from the various blogs under the single AllThingsD.com moniker.

This will make everything look more cohesive from a branding standpoint. We’re AllThingsD now, and not the blogging nation states of BoomTown, Digital Daily, MediaMemo, Mobilized, NetworkEffect, eMoney and NewEnterprise.

While we liked all those pretty names, it’s become clear that it’s gotten a little confusing to readers that we are one single news organization.

Thus, as hard as it is for me personally–I have been writing under the BoomTown name since before there was a Google–out they go.

CONTEXT IS KING:

One big focus: More contextually relevant opportunities to view our content!

Real people translation: All of our content is now categorized under the list of topics that runs across the top of the site, which are News, Reviews, Mobile, Media, Social, Enterprise and Commerce.

These lead to dynamically-generated category pages. Since our coverage is rarely confined to just one of those, any given post or column will probably appear under more than one category.

Of course, there are rabid Peter Kafka fans, as well as those who cannot live without a daily dose of Ina Fried. Luckily, you can still view posts by writer by using the convenient “view by writer” link at the far right of the navigation bar.

And if that’s not enough context for you, the content on display can be further filtered by the most popular tags of the previous 30 days by clicking on “Trending Tags” on any category page or “Kara (or any other writer) by Topic” on any writer’s page.

BIG AND BEAUTIFUL:

As you can see, All Things D now has a wider layout and a better ability to display videos, photos and embedded documents.

The new wider layout is better suited to big, bold graphics and videos. All of our videos will now be streaming to you at 640×360, and while we’re not giving up on LOLcats any time soon, they will be coming to you at a much higher resolution, and they will occasionally be augmented by professional photojournalism from Getty Images and other services.

But fear not: AllThingsD‘s epic Photoshops–such as the recent Skype-tastic image of Microsoft’s Steve Ballmer above–will continue unabated.

LOOK AT THE PRETTY BOXES:

On the new AllThingsD site, we’re no longer confined to bringing you our content in a chronologically reversed river of posts.

Of course, that’s still available if you scroll down to “Today’s Posts,” and you can even filter that view by clicking on any of the writers to the left.

Our new featured content box at the top of the homepage gives us the latitude to highlight the most important stories as well, and to give them the prominence, longevity and visual impact they warrant.

We’re sure you have a lot more questions and it will take some getting used to the new look. So, the whole staff at All Things D is here for you with any questions, comments and, of course, complaints.

THE MORE THINGS CHANGE…:

On a final note: The strong commitment of AllThingsD and the D: All Things Digital conferences to accurate, fair, ethical and pertinent coverage of tech and media news will always be the same. No matter how many fancy new doodads come to the Web, our belief that readers want the kind of high-quality journalism we offer will never ever change.

But we hope you like how we have decided to package that going forward. Once again, please give us feedback about what you like and what you don’t.

Yours in redesign,

Kara Swisher and Walt Mossberg
Co-Executive Editors, All Things D

Nordstrom will acquire the company for $180 million in stock. However, the transaction size could jump to as much as $270 million over time if the company meets certain performance goals and vesting requirements for the existing management team.

At that price, the transaction gives a lot of weight to a burgeoning new area of e-commerce, fueled by private/flash sales and other group-buying trends.

Los Angeles-based HauteLook offers discounts of 50 to 75 percent off home, beauty, travel and local services for women, men and kids. In the last two years, HauteLook says it has conducted 2,500 private sales events for 1,000 high-profile brands.

Seattle-based Nordstrom said HauteLook will operate as an independent, wholly owned subsidiary, to be managed by its current leadership. The HauteLook brand and Web site will remain separate from Nordstrom, and there are plenty of incentives to keep the management team in place.

While Nordstrom is primarily a physical department store, it has a fairly sizable online presence and recently has spent time integrating its online and store presence, so customers can see what inventory is online and what’s available in the store.

The transaction is expected to close in the first quarter of 2011 and is subject to customary closing conditions, including regulatory and HauteLook shareholder approval.

Even more interesting, though, is Experian’s finding that Bing’s success rate–the number of searches that result in a visit to a Web site–is better than Google’s. Significantly better. Bing’s success rate: 81.68 percent. Google’s: 65.57 percent.

Must have been all those searches on hiybbprqag and torsorapy screwing things up for you–right, Google?

Hipmunk, which just raised $4.2 million from a roster of online travel veterans and venture capitalists, gives users access to the familiar airline fares they’re used to on other sites. But the company has a slick visual interface that arrays all of the travel options for a given trip on a grid that shows the hours of day along one axis. Each airfare is represented by a rectangle (color-coded for each airline), the length of which is determined by the duration of the trip, layovers included.

The layout makes it easier to see lots of airfare options at a glance. But another key feature of Hipmunk is its method of ranking the most attractive travel options according to an “agony score.”

Read the rest of this post on the original site

Now, five months into the job, Williams is finding a voice of his own, separate from Digg founder Kevin Rose’s, and trying it out on the Digg community; the longtime veteran of Amazon recently participated in a well-received Digg Dialogg video interview, posted on Tuesday, to answer user questions. (It’s viewable here).

“There was a launch that was in violent disagreement with what our community expected out of the Web site,” Williams told Leo Laporte, who facilitated the interview based on Digg users’ questions. “It’s truly a tragedy of the ages, to some extent.”

But Digg is still a “very vibrant Web site,” with close to 20 million monthly unique visitors, Williams said, and the opportunity to hone a focus on social news that other companies may not have.

(Plus, despite layoffs, a perceived lack of relevancy relative to other social start-ups and multiple leadership changes, Digg still has plenty of money in the bank.)

“It is our top priority to rejuvenate the community,” Williams said.

Digg’s latest launch, called V4, was seen by many as a move to devalue the site’s homegrown community. V4 was the most significant in a string of product changes that took power away from the small body of users that set the agenda for the news site and gave a stronger voice to publishers and Digg’s own curators. And V4 was also an overdue, complete technology overhaul that left out many much-loved features.

In the Laporte interview, Williams quickly tackled precise details about previous features the Digg community wants reinstalled, noting, for instance, that the site has already brought back the “bury” button, allowing users to counteract other users’ votes on submitted stories. He said Digg is also planning future features such as a honing of its news-ranking algorithms for slower weekend traffic, when less-worthy stories may make it to the top.

Beyond those tweaks, Digg will make large-scale efforts to become more personalized, said Williams, and to create communities around specific topics. That’s not necessarily something that the old-time crowd will love, but it may make the site more useful for a broader audience.

Williams encouraged users not just to visit the site, but to comment on and vote up stories with Diggs; those participatory behaviors have decreased as a portion of overall traffic since the launch of V4, he said.

Being the voice of Digg is no small task, and it’s not just because of the company’s hypercritical user base. Digg has long been associated with the founding presence of TV and online video host Kevin Rose. And until Williams joined, Rose had been interim CEO after longtime leader Jay Adelson was pushed out of the company in April. Now Rose is occupied with his many angel investments, a new video show and a newsletter called “Foundation.”

Digg users were uncharacteristically positive in the comments section of the Williams interview entry. (The friendly tone makes me wonder if the old crowd has indeed high-tailed it somewhere else!) “Digg is in good hands,” said one. “I must say that Digg is doing a fantastic job listening to the community and implementing new features,” said another. One user even acknowledged, “I realize changes take time to implement.”

Cheezburger was founded in 2007 by Ben Huh, who raised $2.25 million from angel investors at the time to buy the blog “I Can Has Cheezburger.” Huh has run the company as a lean, profitable operation since then, with 50 employees based in Seattle.

“This is a company that’s borne of no one’s expectations, and we’re totally fine with that,” Huh said in an interview Monday, admitting that, yes, “it’s a cat-picture Web site.”

Huh said Cheezburger had fended off multiple funding offers throughout the years, but finally decided to call back some VCs this fall. “If you’re going to do something, you might as well do it well,” he explained.

Today the ad-supported Cheezburger network of humor sites has 375 million page views and 110 million video views per month, with its 16.5 million visitors uploading 500,000 pictures and videos.

“We’re not here to flip,” said Huh, explaining that the company will use its $30 million to ensure it creates a long-term viable business. He said Cheezburger would open up 18 new job listings Tuesday alongside the funding announcement. Huh said his goal is to build “the Disney of the 21st century.”

Image via I Can Has Cheezburger user jasmine.

In one memorable episode of the famous old short films “The Little Rascals,” after not getting invited to a party, the Our Gang little dudes decided to form their own group, comically called “The He-Man Woman-Haters Club.”

In other words: No girls allowed!

While it was wink-wink cute when Spanky, Alfalfa and Buckwheat huffed and puffed about keeping out Darla–which they never ever could do–back in the last century, it’s not quite as adorkable when it comes to the boards of all the major Web 2.0 hotshots these days.

That would be Twitter, Facebook, Zynga, Groupon and Foursquare, none of which have any women as directors.

As in zero.

What’s most remarkable is that most of these start-ups are run by what I consider enlightened and open-minded entrepreneurs, mostly young enough to be part of a generation more inclined to value equality and diversity in the workplace.

In addition, each of these companies has a massive base of women consumers, in some cases well over 50 percent of its audience.

Thus, it would seem logical that in casting about for those to help guide these companies, one or two women leaders might slip in.

To be fair, it’s not for lack of trying, but of completion, as was the case with Twitter’s recent addition of three new board members.

They were longtime Silicon Valley exec Peter Currie, Flipboard CEO and co-founder Mike McCue and former DoubleClick leader David Rosenblatt.

All are deeply qualified for the Twitter board, which is obviously prepping for its next stage of growth and maturity.

But in its search, the San Francisco microblogging site did not manage to cast the net quite wide enough.

While sources said at least one prominent online woman exec was considered, there were some legitimate issues with her appointment, and it was not completed.

Still, one might imagine Twitter could have tried harder to find other workable choices.

Currently, the Twitter board is made up of the new trio, as well as Benchmark Capital’s Peter Fenton, Union Square Ventures’ Fred Wilson, Bijan Sabet of Spark Capital, CEO Dick Costolo and co-founders Evan Williams and Jack Dorsey.

Things are not any better over at Facebook, which has several prominent women execs running the show, most especially its high-profile COO Sheryl Sandberg.

But, inexplicably, though she does attend board meetings, she is not yet a director of Facebook, nor is any other woman.

In fact, here is Sandberg on topic at a recent TED event for women, in an eloquent speech titled “Why We Have So Few Women Leaders”:

Instead, the Facebook board is all men, all the time, composed of CEO and co-founder Mark Zuckerberg, prominent techie and venture capitalist Marc Andreessen, investor Peter Thiel, Accel Partners’ Jim Breyer and Washington Post head Don Graham.

It is no better at three of the most prominent recent Web 2.0 start-ups, which one source attributes to the lack of woman VCs, who are often the first board members after major investment rounds.

At Zynga, the hot social gaming company in San Francisco, it continues, with an all-male board, despite a very heavily female audience for its casual social games.

That would be co-founder and CEO Mark Pincus, COO Owen Van Natta, investor Bing Gordon of Kleiner Perkins, investor Reid Hoffman and Brad Feld of the Foundry Group.

The same is true at woman-targeted–spas, spas and more spas–social buying site Groupon, which has an unusually large board for a start-up and made up of–as per usual–all men.

The list: Co-founder and CEO Andrew Mason, Accel Partners’ Kevin Efrusy, former AT&T President and COO John Walter, New Enterprise Associates’ Harry Weller and Peter Barris, former AOL exec Ted Leonsis, 37Signals co-founder Jason Fried and early investors Eric Lefkofsky and Brad Keywell.

And, much smaller, is Foursquare’s board, which is the trio of co-founder and CEO Dennis Crowley, co-founder Naveen Selvadurai and Union Square Ventures’ Albert Wenger.

New investors–Ben Horowitz of Andreessen Horowitz and O’Reilly AlphaTech Ventures’ Bryce Roberts–have observer status and both are, needless to say, dudes.

There is no question it is tough to make sure there is a good balance of qualified women leaders to men in tech–it is an issue we wrestle with every single year for the program of speakers at our own All Things Digital conference, although we are most excellent on this issue on our Web site and conference staff.

But it can be done, especially at public tech companies. Google has two women on its board of nine directors; Yahoo has three of 10; even Oracle has two of a dozen.

But a grand total of zero at the leading companies of Web 2.0 is not just a coincidence.

It’s a shame.

Tomorrow, BoomTown will post a list of great women who would be superb directors for any of these companies, but until then, let’s not follow in Spanky’s steps:

However, we’re starting to get more information about how the McDonald’s incident appears connected to hacking incidents at other sites. Chicago Business is reporting that the company responsible for McDonald’s email marketing is Silverpop Systems, and that it had been operating under a subcontract from Chicago-based Arc Worldwide.

So who else is a customer of Silverpop? Yesterday I received an email from someone who’s a customer of deviantArt, a social network where artists share their creations. DeviantArt has a base of 13 million users. Got an account there? You’d better change any passwords that overlap with other sites. The site advised customers that their accounts were compromised, and blamed Silverpop.

It could extend much further yet. Silverpop has more than 100 clients, and not all of them are publicly disclosed, though here are a few, found on its client quotes page and its case studies page: Stamps.com, Pitney Bowes/Mapinfo, Encyclopedia Britannica, Santander Consumer Finance and watchmaker Fossil. There’s no word how any of those other companies are affected, if at all.

Silverpop CEO Bill Nussey said in a blog message to customers that the FBI is investigating the incident, and that only a small percentage of Silverpop customers have been affected. He also said that Silverpop was “among several technology providers targeted as part of a broader cyber attack.” Stacy Kirk, a Silverpop spokeswoman, wouldn’t say anything beyond what’s in Nussey’s message.

I’m beginning to wonder if there’s some indirect connection between what happened to Silverpop and what happened to Gawker. I’m speculating here, but it’s no stretch of the imagination that numbering among deviantArt’s 13 million users are some of the 1.5 million people whose accounts were compromised in the Gawkergate affair. And the FBI is investigating both. Thomas Plunkett, Gawker’s technology chief, told me by email that there’s no evidence of a connection. Then again, as Business Insider tells it, he hasn’t yet had his meeting with the FBI.

Maybe I’m looking for connections that aren’t really there, but it’s really not hard to see how the breach at Gawker could turn out be the start of a domino effect that’s much larger than anyone has yet realized. There certainly is a lot of grumbling about changing passwords today.

If you know more more about any of this, get in touch!

Below is the email to deviantArt users.

From: deviantART.com (address deleted)
Date: Mon, Dec 13, 2010 at 5:54 AM
Subject: RE: Email Notice

Silverpop Systems, Inc., a leading marketing company that sends email messages for its clients, told us that information was taken from its servers. This was probably part of a sweep by spammers. As a result, email addresses belonging to deviantART members were copied. Corresponding usernames and birth date may also have been removed.

We can assure you that nothing occurred on our systems with respect to this incident and no access was gained to private information on deviantART’s servers.

As a member of deviantART, you certainly have a right to know when an incident of this kind occurs. Unfortunately spammers are an unavoidable part of living on the Web.

The likely result of this event might be an increase in spam to your email. Experts have told us that there is an increase in email scams out there on the Internet and you should be cautious. Only click links or download attachments from people you know, particularly if they ask for personal information, and be sure that your email service provider has adequate spam filters.

Because we value the information that members give us, we have decided not to rely on the services of Silverpop in the future and their servers will no longer hold any data from us.

Goldman offered the news in a conversation at LeWeb, saying he’d maintain an advisory role, that he’s not leaving to start something new, that he’s not going to Facebook or Google and that he just needs “a bit of a break.”

Twitter has no lack of product leaders, including co-founder and former CEO Evan Williams, who recently relinquished the top job to make room for former COO Dick Costolo. Goldman had been a close friend of Williams, having first joined him as business manager of blogging software maker Pyra Labs, before it was bought by Google in 2003. Goldman has led product at Twitter since 2007.

Following Goldman’s departure announcement, a company spokeswoman said that Williams “is going to continue in his co-founder role and help with product vision.” She said that it was not yet clear whether the new head of product management would be an internal or external hire.

But, no surprise, sources familiar with the situation said Williams will likely assume the top product role, as it’s the best-fitting landing place for him at the company. The Twitter service was originally created in 2006 by company co-founder and Chairman Jack Dorsey and others when Williams was CEO of a previous start-up called Odeo. Dorsey left his operating role at Twitter in 2008 when Williams replaced him as CEO.

As the company verges on raising funding that would value the company at $3.5 to $4 billion, the departure of Goldman seems to underscore an issue that has plagued Twitter for a long time: Product development.

Aside from its well-documented reliability problems, new products and major upgrades at Twitter are few and far between.

While it is clear the people who founded and now lead Twitter have been passionate and visionary about personal expression and information-sharing in its simplest form, many techies say they are given pause by Twitter’s deficit of innovation since its first and most powerful iteration.

They assert that Twitter’s product launches to date–retweets, lists, some apps and its #newtwitter Web interface–are minor complements to the simple messaging system. In a tech culture that values shiny new toys, multiple people have said to me that Twitter is the least innovative of any other Internet contemporary.

For example, Twitter still doesn’t offer image hosting or its own link shortener, and still has yet to fully incorporate the search service Summize, which it bought in 2008. Perhaps that’s out of concern for displacing and angering its developer corps of companies, like Bit.ly, but since 25 percent of Tweets contain links, it seems obvious that Twitter should help its users shorten them to help fit into its 140-character limit.

The company tried to set a firm road map last April at Chirp, its first developer conference (pictured at left, the dudes of Twitter held a jokey Q&A session at Chirp).

But since then, eagerly awaited products like “Annotations” (a way to add more information to Tweets) have been delayed as the company concentrated on dealing with World Cup traffic and the release of its new Web site. Twitter is hiring as fast as it can, with its ballooning employee count, now at 325, relatively small for a product now used by eight percent of American online adults.

Still, many laud the sleek new Twitter Web site–for which Goldman, Williams and product manager Kevin Cheng led development. It was rolled out to admirable acclaim and user satisfaction.

But Twitter has only a few weeks to shuffle things around before it launches into the new year with no formal leader of its product team.

Here’s a reminder of what that was like: Meet StyleFind.com, which is supposed to be live Tuesday morning. It’s a new shopping site from Time Inc.’s InStyle magazine, and you’ll figure it out as soon as you see it.

In case you don’t: The site helps shoppers pick through some 2,000 brands, from 150 retailers, and eventually sends them off to partner sites, which handle the actual purchase and fulfillment. InStyle will get affiliate fees for forwarding on customers, giving the title another revenue stream to complement circulation and advertising.

StyleFind sports the requisite Twitter and Facebook buttons, but this isn’t one of the new breed of social shopping sites that have cropped up in the past year, like Svpply.

Instead, StyleFind assumes that shoppers are interested in the sense and sensibility that InStyle exudes, translated here by a small team of dedicated editors who pick out clothes and accessories.

Pretty straightforward stuff, and you can find versions of it elsewhere on the Web, and from other publishers as well. The major difference here is that Time Inc. built and operates the site itself, based on technology it acquired when it bought Boston-based StyleFeeder nearly a year ago for a price reported as “well into eight figures.”

Following that deal, Time Warner’s publishing unit then hired Bluefly vet John Carles to head up e-commerce for its Style group. Assuming Stylefind pans out, Carles will be able to use the same model for other titles, including People and even Entertainment Weekly, the publisher says.

Even without that freakish Thanksgiving treat, the Web is full of fun diversions on every topic, including the thankful, enhanced-patted-down long weekend of consumption Americans have ahead of us.

Read on for some of my Thanksgiving ephemeralia picks for this year:

Here’s a historical tidbit I became aware of after reading the National Archives online today: Did you know that in 1863 President Abraham Lincoln made Thanksgiving a national holiday to be held on the fourth Thursday in November, but in 1939 President Franklin D. Roosevelt changed it to the third Thursday to “to lengthen the Christmas shopping season and boost the economy which was still recovering from the Depression”?

The National Archives Web site also provides some documents from Thanksgiving throughout the years, including this one of President Richard Nixon and a turkey.

On to the food. Want to impress your guests with something less passé than, but still thematically consistent with, Turducken? You are in luck. Here are two fantastic alternatives, via YouTube:

The Cherpumple consists of three full pies encased in three full cakes (via @hunterwalk):

Or, there’s the TurBaconEpic (a bird in a bird in a bird in a bird in a bird in a pig):

“Good Morning America” tries, and fails, to demonstrate how to put out a grease fire (via Gawker.tv):

As for the other topic at hand on this holiday–the new widely derided U.S. airport security procedures–everybody’s favorite Taiwanese animators at Next Media Animation have prepared their usual insightful commentary (from last week, but still good):

For further reading:

• Engadget’s frequently updated list of Black Friday gadget deals.
• Boing Boing’s roundup of Thanksgiving science.
• The Wall Street Journal’s report on using your phone to find shopping deals. Google says there are 30 times more mobile shopping searches than three years ago (though that’s smaller than I would think given the growth of the mobile Internet in that time).